League Organization For Rural Development Society, H.No, 6-2-3, Grace v. Secretariat, at Hyderabad

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief. " . ..To issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 3'd respondent in investigating into complaint dated 27.11.2017, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No.3 herein to register the complaint and complete the investigation and to fite the charge sheef before the concerned A/lagistrate,. . . ."

None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case, is not maintainable under Articte 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

I have carefully perused the materials placed on record. ,-€ 2 -i

The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 27.11.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and in Sakiri Vasu v. Sfafe of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the l-{on'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Articte 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances

This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387), a three- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved party is to avail the rumdii*.. 3 provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate' under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C. rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

ln light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent tMagistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should his grievance still subsist.

The Principal secretary (Home Dep.artmeQ S,""r9!qriat, T.S.,at Hyderabad )'. i6" SJpuiintenOJnt of Pblic_e, Jogulamba Gadwal District 3. The Station ffo, ls"'bfilei, F.5 O?Owai Town, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal 4. d; ab to sRt. G. NATHESH RED-DY, Alvggate {oPU9.L 6. iil ac"io -CC Hyderabad [OUT] o. i';r;-cD Cobiet FOF{ HOHIS ,High Cotirt for the Sfate of Telangana at Btu TKS W"" HIGH COURT DATED:08/1 012025 ORDER WP.No.44551 of 2017 '-* :) 1) 20tir iil, fi t,) DISMISSENG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS to ttd"{